9.We are unable to appreciate the stand taken by the respondent. The petitioner, having purchased the land in question from Mr.M.Patturajan, who is an Advocate and Ex-Mayor of the Madurai Corporation, under registered sale dated 15.05.2009, is using a common pathway running between the house of the petitioner and the house of one Mr.J.Jayaraj who is residing on the northern side of the petitioner's house. The said Mr.J.Jayaraj, at the instigation of Mr.M.Patturajan, made a false complaint to the first respondent who issued a notice dated 08.03.2018 alleging that the petitioner has put up a brick construction to an extent of 62' x 42' = 2520 sq. ft. without obtaining any planning permission. In the said notice, only three days time is given for submitting explanation. Mr.J.Jayaraj also filed a Writ Petition (MD)No.4528 of 2018 on 13.02.2018 directing the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction and the same is also pending disposal. The initiation of the said Writ Petition is clear indication to prove the ulterior intention of Mr.J.Jayaraj, who is a relative of Ex-Mayor Mr.M.Patturajan. Thereafter, the second notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2018 levelling allegation that the petitioner has constructed 60 ft. x 42 ft. without any approved plan. The petitioner submitted a detailed letter to the second respondent on 19.03.2018 meeting all the allegations but the same was refused to be received. While so, the respondents have wrongly come and sealed the building in question without any jurisdiction. The notice dated 08.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner levelling various allegations to submit explanation within three days, the notice is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741 (Ramaraju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort. St. George,Chennai and others ) wherein it is held that before taking action under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, notice in writing giving at least two weeks time should be served and, if the person avoids to receive the notice, such notice can be effected by affixure. A reading of the notice dated 08.03.2018 calling upon the petitioner to remove/demolish the construction is badly motivated in the light of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench cited above. It is, therefore, appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the ratio which reads as under:
